aircraft carrier improvement

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Clock wrote:

      Most people just don't use Aircraft Carriers correctly. Also, it would be nice if Naval Patrol Aircraft could land on them and they could have a feature that could carry aircraft along with them so that when the aircraft carrier moved the aircraft moved. Also, if you land planes on a carrier and your ally isn't moving the carrier or the other way around, is that really the game's fault? They're supposed to be active at the same time to coordinate it or can just leave it somewhere good.
      Also, you can put carriers next to each other, bam, 30 capacity with them next to each other. If the opponent doesn't have frigates, they're going to get decimated by NPA, etc. If no Cruisers, decimated by ASW and ships. If no Destroyers, decimated by subs. So Carrier Group + Aircraft + Submarines seems good. People really just use aircraft carriers too little and when they are used they are used improperly, I have never actually seen a carrier used properly. Also, for an example, I was going to land planes on my ally's carrier to bombard the Americas but I couldn't because it's not allowed in the state of the game as it is. My ally wasted tens of thousands of Romponents, Rares, etc. on those Carriers that would have been useful if allied planes could land on them and help out.

      By the way: Do the planes go back to the carrier if the carrier moves too far away? If they don't, what happens? I have never experienced this and I would like to know.
      For starters I have used carriers and have seen some value to them but only in very specific circumstances, especially revolving around the Pacific. But the vast majority of the time they serve as a fancy toy that can easily be replaced by combat vessels in its current form.

      So exactly how many different units do you need for a Carrier Battle Group? You suggest carriers, submarines, ASW choppers, naval patrol bombers, and probably naval air-superiority fighters. Plus escort ships like frigates and maybe some aircraft that can do some damage against ground targets like strike fighters or attack and gunship choppers.

      That adds up to 5-10 different units, each of which costs resources, buildings, and most importantly time to get properly upgraded. If your game is lasting till day 60-80 then maybe that is viable but most games last half that time.

      And how is that stack better than spamming frigates and submarines, for example, with airfields at available islands for any aircraft needed? Why not just crush the opponents navy and force a landing, and then quickly building an airfield? This way is just immensely more cost and time effective than building a Carrier Group. (RP maps might be an exemption, especially if there are certain rules in play that prevent all-out war scenarios.)

      I wish the carrier was more viable but at present it has too much against it to be taken seriously. (Every time I find out there’s a carrier in an foreign fleet, I am not filled with any apprehension, nor do I feel the need to adjust for it, like I would if I find that someone is building cruisers for example. Instead I see a juicy target :D )

      PS- I believe that if carrier moves beyond the aircraft’s patrol range then the aircraft will immediately fly back to the carrier and land on it.
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.

    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      So exactly how many different units do you need for a Carrier Battle Group? You suggest carriers, submarines, ASW choppers, naval patrol bombers, and probably naval air-superiority fighters. Plus escort ships like frigates and maybe some aircraft that can do some damage against ground targets like strike fighters or attack and gunship choppers.
      Sounds like you need a second aircraft carrier to carry all the aircraft to escort the first aircraft carrier.


      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      PS- I believe that if carrier moves beyond the aircraft’s patrol range then the aircraft will immediately fly back to the carrier and land on it.
      Might build an aircraft carrier one day so handy to know. Thanks.

    • JackDesott wrote:

      In my opinion, is the aircraft carrier very good and it can be used as a tactical base. But it is annoying in my opinion that you can't land your fighter jets on the aircraft carrier of a member in your coalition. That might cause trouble in case of leaving a coalition, but I think it can be handled as an airbase has been destroyed and fighter jets will be able to fly to the nearest air base or just stay in the water as a transport fleet.
      You know how we could hugely improve the aircraft's carriers capabilities? If all fighters could have a specific upgrade where they gain the ability to land on carriers instead of having a specific research for naval aircraft. Like it's ridiculous we have to waste a research slot and build lv 3 air basae just to have the ability to land on carriers...makes no sense to me

    • Hi, been playing for about a year. Myself and my boys always play a single game together. I usually stay always stay away from carriers because I am a believer in building qn airfield every so many miles, reasons (quick in, quick out, and speed of air strike attacks). By the time we we along enough for going after another continent, we have bombarded with a navy and built an airfield. So, I probably would be inclined to use carriers if our alliance could share it. IRL, allies of the United States land on our carriers, if they are qualed ofcourse and with authorization if the need is there. Please, bring on the carrier sharing.